Back on December 8th a post about Obama bumper stickers generated 133 comments over the course of 4 days. Late in the thread a discussion of the meaning and ramifications of the Second Amendment developed, and commenter Cory veered off into the weeds with some bizarre assertions. Lest I be accused of misrepresenting what he said, let me just quote directly.
In response to Amazona’s casual comment that “BTW, gun control is a Constitutional issue.”
Cory responded with:
“That’s such crap. There is exactly one Constitutional decision to be made about gun control: either I have the right to bear the arms that the Framers had available (or their rough equivalents), or I have the right to bear anything and everything, including a suitcase full of weaponized Anthrax or a nuclear weapon. The one sentence in the Constitution doesn’t leave any room for any interpretations in between, so which is it? You can’t make the Constitution give you the right to a concealed handgun without giving criminals the Constitutional right to weapons of mass destruction, and I have this funny feeling that if you survey the American public, almost zero of them would want that.”
As the error of his logic was pointed out to him by several individuals, Cory just kept digging his hole deeper and deeper, including statements like this gem:
“I only brought up gun control in passing. Amazona was the one that latched onto it like a rabid dog. I actually don’t have a strong opinion on gun control, I just get sick and tired of hearing people debate about the interpretation of a now useless Constitutional amendment instead of having a discussion about what weapon restrictions make the most sense.”
Finally, after what really had been a pretty civil discussion, he blurted out:
“This will be the last time I post on (or read) blogs4victory. I’m sure some of you are already jumping for joy, because you are thinking you have “won”. I’m not really sure what you’ll think you’ve won, as you surely have not drastically changed my mind on anything, but congratulations to you, anyway.”
That was toward the end of the thread, but it gave me the idea for a post about the Bill of Rights in general, and the Second Amendment in particular. I find it to be one of the ultimate ironies of our political system that Madison’s promise of a subsequent Bill of Rights was what it took to secure ratification of the Constitution in 1789, as many feared the power of a central government without codified restrictions on the power of that government. For at least the last century, Progressives have been trying to figure out ways to expand their power by either ignoring, distorting or outright assaulting those individual rights. If that doesn’t have the makings for a spirited discussion, I don’t know what does.
Spook, I think this— ………. Madison’s promise of a subsequent Bill of Rights was what it took to secure ratification of the Constitution in 1789, as many feared the power of a central government without codified restrictions on the power of that government… may be one of the most relevant things ever posted on this blog.
The ignorance of the populace about the Bill of Rights is alarming. Oh, bits and pieces are selectively quoted to support various special interests, mostly in the area of free speech. But there seems to be no understanding of why the Bill of Rights was written, or its original intent.
Our very own president, who is alleged to be a Constitutional scholar and professor, has complained that the “problem” with the Constitution is that it tells us what we can’t do but doesn’t tell us what we can. Unfortunately, he represents the ignorance of our own body of law that is rampant in this country.
I suggest that a discussion of the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, begin with the 10th Amendment, and relate all to that defining statement of the duties and restrictions of the federal government.
Our very own president, who is alleged to be a Constitutional scholar and professor, has complained that the “problem” with the Constitution is that it tells us what we can’t do but doesn’t tell us what we can
Amazona, actually, I believe what he said was the Constitution says what the government can’t do to us, but it fails to say what the government MUST DO FOR US. If that isn’t an exact quote, it’s pretty close, and, IMO, it comes close to spelling out the basic difference between Conservatives and Progressives in the fewest words possible, so Obama at least gets credit for brevity. Unfortunately, in his case, brevity is not the soul of wit, but simply an assault on the soul of America.
I agree on the importance of the 10th Amendment, and I’ve probably been a Tenther as long as you have. Of all the amendments in the Bill of Rights, the 10th has been shredded by presidents and legislatures more than all the rest put together. If Obamacare is implemented, it will be the final nail in the coffin of the 10th Amendment, as there will be nothing that the federal government will not be able to force on the citizens by whose consent they supposedly govern.
Our very own president, who is alleged to be a Constitutional scholar and professor,
The very one who had togive up his law license as well as his “wife” the Mooch?
Yep, the libs, progs and mindless drones are now deflecting the argument away from a Constitutional RIGHT to one of “reasonable restrictions”.
They are also trying to propose “reasonable restrictions” to free speech (Fairness Doctrine, Campaign Finance, etc.etc.).
Of course, we all now that the entire left favors a strong central government and they are also looking to increase that power Constitution be damned!
“Reasonable restrictions” is their (Progressives) latest tack to remove rights from Americans. Just look at the EPA and their new stance or SOPA as examples. Better yet, just go to the airport for a flight where you are now presumed to be a “terrorist” until proven otherwise.
If two airlines had two flights leaving in the same time frame to the same destination and one had the new TSA rules in effect while one had the Israel standards–I could almost guarantee which one would be full. But then again–I am one of them evil folks that believes in things like profiling and I feel safer on any flight of El Al than the groping grandmother dictatorship of TSA.
either I have the right to bear the arms that the Framers had available (or their rough equivalents)
Cory even acknowledged “their rough equivalents”. How do you argue that an AR-15 isn’t the rough equivalent of a single shot musket in light of advances in technology. In fact, the technology for a semi-automatic weapon like an AR-15 or modern semi-automatic pistols has been around for over a century.
In addition to the .45, John Browning was also the designer of another popular sidearm that endures today. I owned and carried a Browning Hi-Power back in the 70’s and 80’s, and it’s essentially unchanged since it’s introduction 85 years ago. Liberals love to rail on about “high-capacity magazines”, as though they’re a modern-day phenomenon, but the Browning Hi-Power had a 14 round capacity (13 + 1 in the chamber) as long ago as 1926.
What most of those that do not know the difference between a semi-automatic and an assault weapon (military only w/o class III firearms license) are the same ignorant folks that claim look-alike firearms and “high capacity” magazines are the problem.
Most everyone that has followed target shooting as a hobby knows that a trained individual can out perform large magazine idiots including reloading. In several pistol competitions I have been able to complete (and occasionally win) with my S&W 29 revolver using speed loaders over the large clip folks–my problem is I do not have the time, nor money, these days to be practicing enough.
On top of that–even if we both get 15 rounds down range in the same timeframe–they still have to hit the target to count. That, at least, I always make the time to make sure doesn’t get rusty.
2 quick clarifications. When I said “large magazine idiots” I was referring to those (I have a few friends) that like 30 round banana clips that always get caught up in the brush. Not high capacity.
That, and I traded my M1911A1 Gold Cup (Mk IV) back in the late 70’s or early 80’s for the S&W Model 29 (.44 mag) and a Henry H006 (Big Boy) rifle (plus some cash) and never looked back. Even though I have several others–this pair has exceeded in every respect so far. Plus, no fumbling for which round for which weapon.
Most days–older and proven will always win out.
I have a problem with the term “assault rifle” as it seems to me that once you use a rifle to assault someone it becomes an assault rifle, even if you use a .22 to hit someone over the head.
Yes, I know what the term actually means, but once the Left got hold of the term and started trying to use it for anything that had a certain appearance or a magazine or whatever, I thought, might as well go for it all and ban “assault rocks” and “assault baseball bats”—
I am not sure Ama, without the fancy terminology I would have smacked with a nondescript piece of lumber. 😀
You do have the right to bear almost any arms as long as you have the proper licensing. If you want to discuss the need (or lack thereof) for the government to restrict availability through licensing–then that is a different subject. The simplest first step is to get your Class III firearms license (normally gun dealers) and you can own anything up to and including fully-automatic weapons plus the ability to buy, sell, and ship firearms to other Class III dealers nationwide.
I gave mine up years ago but a little hint here–build on an addition to your residence and hire a small staff just to keep up with the government paperwork you will be required to complete and be prepared to relinquish your rights to unwarranted searches on the address on the application to the BATFE.
My view is Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms should be a convenience store ~ not a government agency.
Ah but ATF is a convenience store. Just ask Los Zetas.
Ah, but I have given up “Running” with the Marines many years ago.
I’m a little surprised. I expected our resident Liberals to come out of the woodwork for a 2nd Amendment thread.
we would have just “shot” them down…..figuratively speaking 🙂
I was at a local range one day with my AR-15 and decided to show my friend how well it could shoot….YES a 30 round mag, semi auto of course.
Cranked the 30 down range when a young range observer came running waving his arms and yelling for me to stop.
I inquired why and he blurted out YOU CANT FIRE FULL AUTO here, you have to go to a different area and get qualified. I laughed and told him my rifle was semi auto ONLY, he sneered and said BS nobody can shoot semi that fast.
I re loaded the weapon set it on the range stand and told him to shoot and decide for himself if it had any full auto capabilities.
After several rounds and no selector switch he said damn can you teach me to shoot like that?
LOL I had a new buddy at the range from then on.
Still not much of a match for Cory and his satchel of weaponized anthrax and nuclear bomb, heh.
you got that right……
I have this next to my bed
This new Taurus (judge) is chambered for the .410 shotshell, and packs a pretty good payload of shot to reliably dispatch crawling vermin.
For the vermin that walk upright on their hind legs, it also chambers and fires the .45 Colt cartridge, making this a very versatile handgun. Taurus calls this five-shot revolver “The Judge”, which seems appropriate, even if the name will most likely offend the type of person referenced in the preceding paragraph. It weighs in at just under 36 ounces, and packs rather comfortably holstered on the hip or across the chest in one of Rob Leahy’s Grizzly Tuff holsters, with the latter preferred if any riding or wading is anticipated.
first round, .410 #4 shot
second, .410 00 buck
3-5 .45 colt
I always keep some weaponized anthrax on me. For duck hunting.
Not to push the point but this could be why you are “Retired” 😉 Just trying to blow smoke up your skirt or whatever retired “evil” spooks wear.
Actually, I retired when the Berlin Wall fell, and the Navy Security Group couldn’t get rid of 04’s and 05’s fast enough. And, at this point in my life, jeans and polo shirts have replaced the skirt, heh.
“For at least the last century, Progressives have been trying to figure out ways to expand their power by either ignoring, distorting or outright assaulting those individual rights.”
This statement pretty much says it all. Yet, the American voter keeps electing progressives that continue to erode our constitutional rights in any way they can. The American voter must want this. Why else do we keep sending the lesser of evils to Washington D.C. in some vauge hope they will respect and defend the Constitution?
not really, voter fraud and huge numbers of plantation dwellers in large inner citys contribute to this problem.
red = GOP
Neo, I was not talking about the donks. I was talking about the repubs. Repubs keep sending the lesser evil to D.C. and keep expecting things to change. It would seem to me that quite a few progressive repubs are willing to live on that plantation too.
It would seem to me that quite a few progressive repubs are willing to live on that plantation too.
most public school educated
How else do you explain doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. I wish it were not true but that is how it is.
O/T. The deconstruction of Iraq starts. Did not take them long.
Here is where I have to agree with you but I also hope that a great deal of voters are now paying attention. Not that it may do any good, or too few to late but at least it is an awaking of the sleeping giant,
the framers of the constitution lived in an era that assumed that good will and christian morals would remain a standard that everyone would go by…so when they remove the good will and standards of christianity from those who govern under the constitution…then all sorts of reinterpetations follow…
these people have little to no concern about what the original intent of the constitution was…the work for one purpose…to create situations that will effectively circumvent the constitution so they can…get around it…and draw all power to the central government…
communism hasnt changed at all…its just put on a new face…
ATHEIST communism hasnt changed at all…its just put on a new face…
What is amazing is that Newt promises to use the Capitol Police to arrest judges he disagrees with and no one here makes a peep. If Obama had made such a suggestion the hydraulic fluid from exploded heads of Republican drones who post here would have been splattered all over this blog. So much for a genuine concern for the Constitution.
the hydraulic fluid from exploded heads of Republican drones who post here would have been splattered all over this blog. So much for a genuine concern for the Constitution.
so much for a genuine discussion troll.
Now Cory, I thoght you promised never to come back? 🙂
Simply put steelhead, Congress has the power to institute courts inferior to the Supreme Court. That is written into the constitution. Congress can at thier will disband every court inferior to the Supreme Court if they will.
Then again, I do not expect you to believe anything about the Constitution other than it is a living breathing document.
I think that may be a broad reading of Congress’ duties regarding inferior courts. But, suffice it to say that even if Congress has the right to subpoena a judge to defend a ruling, doesn’t mean it’s the prudent (or even the smart) thing to do.
Spook and I were discussing the coequal nature of the Branches of the Government and the events that might happen should one branch try to institute itself above the others. One thing I can guarantee is that every court right up to and including the Supreme Court will line up to defy Congressional subpoenas to appear to justify a ruling except in extreme cases where obvious Judicial Misconduct is apparent. And then, we have procedures for dealing with rogue jurists that doesn’t involve appearing before our version of an omnipotent Dumas.
Gingrich is wrong.
Article I section 8. This line appears.
Congress has the right to
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
How is this a broad reading of the Constitution?
what he actually said
Appearing on CBS’s “Face the Nation,“ Gingrich said there is a ”fundamental assault on our liberties by the courts.” He defended his previously stated position that the president and Congress should have the authority to ignore court rulings they disagree with, and that in the case of extremely controversial decisions, lawmakers should have the power to subpoena activist judges and have them defend their rulings.
When host Bob Schieffer questioned how such a subpoena could be enforced, such as whether he would send a Capitol Hill police officer to forcibly bring the judge in, Gingrich said yes.
“If you had to,” he said. “Or you would instruct the Justice Department to send the U.S. Marshal.”
Citing in particular U.S. District Court Judge Fred Biery, who ruled in June that a Texas high school could not have any religious language in its graduation ceremony, Gingrich said: “I think he should be asked to explain a position that radical. How could he say he’s going to jail the superintendent over the word ‘benediction’ and ‘invocation’?”
“You have an increasingly arrogant judiciary,” he said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.“ ”The question is, is there anything we the American people can do? The standard answer has been eventually we’ll appoint good judges. I think that’s inadequate. The Constitution promises a balance of the judicial branch, the executive branch and the legislative branch. The Federalist Papers say specifically the weakest of the three branches is the judiciary.
First, you theory would only apply to Federal Courts inferior to the Supreme Court, not State Courts. Actually it says The Congress shall have Power To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court.
Next, the citation reads “constitute” which is the makeup and authority each Court is assigned (criminal, civil, bankruptcy etc.) not the necessarily subsequent existence. There is nothing in the Constitution that states that Judges serve at the pleasure of Congress.
Third, should Congress decide to simply disband a court the judgments of that court would stand until appealed ~so what’s the point?
Forth, any Judge displaced for any reason other than misconduct, end of term or inability to serve would dispute that termination right back up to the Supreme Court, and who do you think the Court will side with?
But, you’re missing the point and taking the thread far afield; the issue is whether or not Congress has the authority to command a Judge from any Court to be summoned to justify his/her rulings to the galactic-ly uninformed congressmen.
I sure as hell wouldn’t want to live under a regime that takes Judges out and shoots them, then orders the rule of law to forget the dead judges ever ruled.
Gingrich is wrong. Any activist ruling without the authority granted will be appealed and subsequently overturned. If not, then it carries the weight of law and we’re stuck with it.
Biery should never have to justify his ruling, but other judges should read his decisions and convene to determine the legality of that decision.
Congress can’t dissolve the Supreme Court, nor can they remove Supreme Court Justices or the Chief Justice of the United States. This is why the President is so important to this equation; the Justices appointed are the Justices we live with.
Try this; the Judicial and the Legislative are coequal. How would you feel about a Judge issuing a subpoena to a Congressman to explain a law he voted for? How about Congress issuing a subpoena to the President to explain to congress a controversial decision? A Judge in a Federal Bankruptcy court Subpoenas the President to explain why Congress didn’t include student loans in the federal bankruptcy guidelines. The President signed the law; now the Court wants to hold him accountable!
Where does it END? Where oh where does it end?
Even if one accepts your premise, Newt is running for President, not Congress. Beyond that you are off the mark with your argument even though it is quite different than the one that Newt is making.
Count comes to the correct conclusion. I’ll give him credit for that but you can be assured that the response from the right would have been like a meteor moving at the speed of light had someone from the left made such a comment. As I said before the concern with the Constitution that the right has expressed over and over again is not genuine but rather politically motivated. The lack of reaction is like a whole offense ignoring a fumble because it came from their own running back.
Where to start?
“First, you theory would only apply to Federal Courts inferior to the Supreme Court, not State Courts. Actually it says The Congress shall have Power To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court.”
Isn’t that what I just posted above? Was there some nuance I missed?
Next, the citation reads “constitute” which is the makeup and authority each Court is assigned (criminal, civil, bankruptcy etc.) not the necessarily subsequent existence. There is nothing in the Constitution that states that Judges serve at the pleasure of Congress.
Where did I say this?
“Third, should Congress decide to simply disband a court the judgments of that court would stand until appealed ~so what’s the point?
How about to avoid further damage?
“Forth, any Judge displaced for any reason other than misconduct, end of term or inability to serve would dispute that termination right back up to the Supreme Court, and who do you think the Court will side with?”
How about they side with the Constitution? I expect Supreme Court Justices to side with the constitution and not with people.
“But, you’re missing the point and taking the thread far afield; the issue is whether or not Congress has the authority to command a Judge from any Court to be summoned to justify his/her rulings to the galactic-ly uninformed congressmen.”
Yes you are right. I propose instead of issuing a supeona that impeachment hearings should begin at once.
“I sure as hell wouldn’t want to live under a regime that takes Judges out and shoots them, then orders the rule of law to forget the dead judges ever ruled.”
Nothing but pure hyperbole. I never advocated any such thing, but hey it looked good.
Count does the Justice have the constitutional authority to issue the supeona?
“Where did I say this?”
You wrote “right” the Constitution says “Power”. They are distinct in the Law. One is an exercise in a duty the other is immutable.
“How about to avoid further damage?”
In whose opinion? Congress? Congress wants to stop Constitutional abuses??? Abuses committed by the Judiciary???Are you serious??
Since Marbury v. Madison the Court is the final arbiter of Constitutionality. All cases have a route they follow to insure this burden is met. So sorry you want to short circuit that, but if you want a Legislature with authority over a Judiciary move to a communist country.
“How about they side with the Constitution?”
Making unpopular decisions or applying laws in ways interpreted by the Courts is not unconstitutional. Judges that make bad decisions are overturned, enough bad decisions and they are removed from the Bench. Again, if you want Barney Frank to have the authority to fire a judge then you are not Libertarian you’re a fool!
“Yes you are right. I propose instead of issuing a supeona that impeachment hearings should begin at once.”
Impeach a judge because a Congressman thinks he’s wrong? In spite of the fact that you at no time even implied that the Judge committed an impeachable offense. Other than offending you with his interpretation of the facts.
“Nothing but pure hyperbole. I never advocated any such thing, but hey it looked good.”
No, you said that Congressmen should have authority over judges; you said that judges must explain themselves at the whim and pleasure of their Congressional Overlords; you said the rule of law is subject to the caprice of the Congress in session … You might as well have said take the law out and shoot it!
Does the Justice have the constitutional authority to issue the subpoena?
I don’t mean to be flippant but I don’t understand your question.
I’m sorry, are you asking if the Justice Department has the authority a subpoena or a Supreme Court Justice has the authority? Or are you asking if the Judiciary has the authority?
In each case the question isn’t if they have subpoena authority, the question is can they extend that authority to a coequal branch of government? Ask the Ervin Committee if they were able to subpoena Nixon’s correspondence. Coequal means just that.
If Congress uses its subpoena authority to summon a judge to explain his ruling the judge would be within his rights to tell Congress to
pound sandread the decisioin and appeal if Congress thinks it has standing.
Gingrich is advocating that Congress be the arbiter of the Law. That’s absurd on its face.
“You wrote “right” the Constitution says “Power”. They are distinct in the Law. One is an exercise in a duty the other is immutable”
Ah, I see. You are quibbling over word usage. Ok Guilty as charged. I meant congress ihas the constitutional authority to establish courts inferior to the supreme court. Happy now Count?
“In whose opinion? Congress? Congress wants to stop Constitutional abuses??? Abuses committed by the Judiciary???Are you serious??”
What is this in reference to? Something I wrote.
“Since Marbury v. Madison the Court is the final arbiter of Constitutionality. All cases have a route they follow to insure this burden is met. So sorry you want to short circuit that, but if you want a Legislature with authority over a Judiciary move to a communist country.”
What is your point Count? Does congress not have the authority under the constitution to institute tribunals inferior to the supreme court. If Darth newton could get congress to pass a law eleminating all inferior federal courts what would be unconstiutional about it?
“Again, if you want Barney Frank to have the authority to fire a judge then you are not Libertarian you’re a fool!”
I never said this and you know it. Quit reacting to your dislike of me personally and react to the question. Where did I ever say that congress should have this ability? I did not say it. That is you putting words into my mouth.
“No, you said that Congressmen should have authority over judges; you said that judges must explain themselves at the whim and pleasure of their Congressional Overlords; you said the rule of law is subject to the caprice of the Congress in session … You might as well have said take the law out and shoot it!”
I never said anything like this and again you know it. Again you are letting your dislike of me get the way of what I have been saying.
My point again is.
Congress has the constitutional authority to institute federal courts inferior to the Supreme Court. Should any congress decide to disband all federal courts inferior to the Supreme Court and a President sign the bill into law not even the Supreme Court has the power to overturn it. Not if they serve the constitution.
The second point in being here is does a federal justice have the ability to tell congress he will not obey a congressional supeona? Appearntly not, I have been unable to find any law that says a federal justice may ignore a congressional supeona.
If anyone thinks I am defending Darth Newton please don’t. The man is a dispicable quitter and big government progressive. He quit on the speakership, he quit the HoR. He quit on two wives. He will quit on you too. Lucky for him he has a couple of million bucks from fannie mae in a bank account to live off after the campaign is done.
• “You are quibbling over word usage”
The Law and the Constitution is all about the exact meaning of the words.
• “What is this in reference to? Something I wrote.”
Yes, short term memory loss? You wrote “How about to avoid further damage?”
• “What is your point Count?”
Marbury v. Madison gives the Judiciary the power to decide Constitutionality; it does not give Congress that authority. Congress cannot summon a judge to “explain himself” PERIOD> Newt is a fool.
• “Congress has the constitutional authority to institute federal courts inferior to the Supreme Court. Should any congress decide to disband all federal courts inferior to the Supreme Court and a President sign the bill into law not even the Supreme Court has the power to overturn it. Not if they serve the constitution.”
Not true. Since more than half the cases in Federal Courts involve the Federal Government, the disbanding of Federal Courts would be viewed by the Supreme Court as interference and invalidated by the Courts.
Congress may not interfere with the duties of the Judiciary. Congress’ attempt to “disband” the Federal Court System is abuse of power and will be held in contempt of the Supreme Court and prohibited from further action unless they show cause to dismiss the lower courts as best interest of justice. Due Process applies to the Courts and Congress.
• The second point in being here is does a federal justice have the ability to tell congress he will not obey a congressional subpoena?”
Congress must explain the scope and intent of the subpoena. If it has been issued for something as patently absurd as “explain your ruling” the Judge can and will send the subpoena to a higher court for a TRO.
So, in conclusion, your premise that Congress may dismiss all Federal Courts at its whim and pleasure is wrong.
Your premise that Congress can dismiss if the President signs something is equally absurd; I don’t care how many people agree to it, you cannot violate the Constitution.
Your premise that I dislike or have any feelings regarding you is wrong; I honestly don’t care one way or another about you, but I do care when people use sophomoric logic to bend the Constitution into something the Founders never intended, nor the Courts have ever ruled.
“• “What is this in reference to? Something I wrote.”
Yes, short term memory loss? You wrote “How about to avoid further damage?””
You have the choice of letting courts like the 9th in california to continue to issue descisions based on thier feelings or you have the ability to abolish that court completely. You also have the constitutional authority to abolish that court.
Tell me, which descision do you make?
Article I Section 8 of the Constitution states, Congress has the authority to
constitute Tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
Count says this
“your premise that Congress may dismiss all Federal Courts at its whim and pleasure is wrong.”
The Constitution begs to differ with you Sir.
I have little room to speak in this digression; however, it was the great Progressive that turned law away from written statues towards case law. Another peg in the coffin, in my humble opinion.If the law is really on your side–argue the case on law.
As I have said before–my ’23 T-bucket has only the bucket in common with the original but qualifies under the “law” as a 1923 Ford. All 750+ horsepower and nasty traction.
Total progressive BS if you ask me.
Now, a little more on subject is there are three co-equal branches of government with the judiciary being the lesser (but co-equal.) I see no issue with Congress, who created and maintains, the Judiciary from completely dismissing and re-creating it.
Personally, I do not think this is a good idea; however, it is also not outside their reach.
If a Judge is supoened by congress does that judge have a constitutional right to ignore it?
and neither can they legislate from the bench, or over rule the legislative branch through factious rulings and far left wing ideology.
Its not about “over ruling” the legislative branch neocon. Judges can rule on the constitutionality of laws passed by the legislature whether you like their rulings or not.
steelhead is right. It has been the job of the judicial branch to watch-dog the Congress from overstepping since 1802. Congress must abide, or appeal to the Supreme Court. If the Court agrees then Congress must re-write the law to meet the Court’s interpretation.
Sucks sometimes but that’s our system. The fly in the ointment is that the Supreme Court gets to decide which cases they hear, and the cases on which they rule.
“nor can they remove Supreme Court Justices or the Chief Justice of the United States.”
Supreme Court Justices are immune from impeachment? Thats a new one. I will give the benifit of the doubt though knowing you did not mean other than for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Should I have?
Now you’re picking fly shit out of the pepper just like the trolls.
Congress cannot remove a Supreme Court Justice or the Chief Justice of the United States without impeachment. An impeachment involves a crime or misbehavior. It does not include making “activist” decisions no matter how many people disagree with those decisions.
There is no clause for impeachment based on Congressional disapproval or .
Are you just intent on starching the limits of the discussion until you find a place where you can “gotcha”? Because you’ve scored no points based on your argument.
Thats because I am not arguing about anything really Count. You have let your dislike of me personally get in the way of what I have been saying.
I am not trying to score any gotcha points. I was trying to discuss what the constitution allows and what it does not allow.
“Now you’re picking fly shit out of the pepper just like the trolls.”
Right back at ya Count.
treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdeamenors, that is what is required for impeachment of civil officers of the U.S., I imagine that would pertain to judges.
Subpeona of a judge for questioning before Congress on a non-impeachable manner, could cause a problem as far as separation of powers, however, i would think Congress could do it in the judicial committee if their intent was to learn from the opinion of the judge how better to word that or future laws so that they could be constitutional. If that was the purpose, then the subpoena could not be fought on separation of powers.
that is accurate except for issuing a subpoena to appear for advice on drafting a bill; they may “invite” judges to give statements but that creates issues should that judge ever be called on to adjudicate. To compel attendence for advice would be abuse of power.
The Judiciary was devised by Congress and can be dismissed as well by Congress for good reason with the backing of the people. Nine folks in robes are not the final arbitrator of all decent. No matter which pew of lawyerdoom you bow to.
” for good reason with the backing of the people” Agreed, but the constitution defines that “good reason”.
“Nine folks in robes are not the final arbitrator of all decent.”
But they are the final arbiter of the Constitution and can only be removed by impeachment.
The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Again the Constitution overides opinion. Should Newton Somehow get elected and get a compliant congress, POOF all courts inferior to the Supreme Court could disapear.
I am not talking at all about what Newt really wants. Just the authority of Congress to do it.
All nice and constitutional.
Stuart v. Laird and Marbury v. Madison established that the dissolution of courts which had been established for political reasons was prescriptive; the Judiciary Act of 1802 (which repealed the Judiciary Act of 1801) constitutional in correcting the midnight judges which were unconstitutionally seated.
Interesting read. It seems Congress has canned at least 16 federal judges in the past.
I guess case law just got a teensy bit bigger?
Sorry it is wikipedia but it the best written article I have found so far.
Even a Supreme Court Descision disagrees with you count.
Case law just a smidgin bigger now?
The Supreme Court agreed with me, read the case and their decision. Read Marbury v. Madison. and mostly read Stuart;
“Stuart v. Laird was a case in which a judge appointed pursuant to the 1801 Act had entered judgment. Laird asked the circuit court (that is, Chief Justice John Marshall, riding circuit) to execute the judgment. Stuart’s lawyer was Charles Lee, who also represented William Marbury. Lee argued that execution was permissible only by the judge who issued the judgment. He also argued that the 1802 Judiciary Act, which repealed the 1801 Act, was unconstitutional. Marshall held against Stuart. The decision in Stuart was argued at the time Marbury was decided by the Court. Had the Supreme Court held the 1802 Act unconstitutional, Jeffersonian Republicans would have reacted swiftly and firmly to restrict the power of the judicial branch of government. As you can tell in the opinion excerpted above, the Court held the 1802 Act constitutional, thus defusing the crisis between court and the political branches.”
Fact JA 1801 eliminated Judges.
Fact JA 1802 did not reinstate those Judges.
With Marshall not participating (though very much active behind the scenes), Justice William Paterson held for a unanimous Court that Congress did have the authority under the Constitution both to establish and abolish lower federal courts.
I think this made my point yes?
Congress abolishes Circuit Courts.
Congress aboloshes unconstitutionally established courts.
Great discussion. Sorry I had to bail last night — prior committment.
Just based on everything we knew about Obama and the kinds of people he surrounded himself with, I had fears at the beginning of his administration that there would be an all-out assault on the 2nd Amendment. Other than the failed premise on which Fast and Furious was likely based, it doesn’t appear that this current crop of Progressives has much interest in disarming the American public. Three years ago there was much talk about taxing ammunition to the point where no one could afford it, but I can still buy a box of 50 115 gr. FMJ 9mm at Wal-Mart for around $12.00. And, if anything, the price of popular firearms, both long guns and handguns, has come down since Obama took office. Anyone have any thoughts on this? Is this just the calm before the storm, or do practical Progressives realize that the logistics of disarming the public is just an overwhelming task?
another good place for ammo
maybe it is time for the people in the SOVERIGN states, to tell the federal govt and activist left wing commie judges to pizz off.
‘Holy War’: Thousands Gather to Support TX Nativity Scene Against Atheists’ Attacks
“…Jesus Christ is the only way.”
OOPS spook and
Want a definition of “legislating from the bench”? Simply read recent headlines. The judicial branch has abused its power by self-declaring itself to have power above the executive and legislative branches. Judicial activism continues to wreak havoc in our land. Instead of practicing law, judges push forth their agendas. Here’s a shocking example of the aforementioned:
Earlier this month, U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker overturned the will of the people in California. In 2008, the people of California overwhelmingly voted that marriage is between one man and one woman. Judge Walker (an openly homosexual man) deemed Proposition 8 “unconstitutional.” (Rather, he deemed it disagreeable with his beliefs.)
As their hands gripped the quills to write the U.S. Constitution, our wise founding fathers possessed immense foresight and fortitude: With checks and balances (created by three government branches: legislative, executive, and judicial), the Constitution protects freedom. How? It doesn’t grant too much control to one branch.
When someone tries to take away our rights, America fights back.
The Walker decision is interesting. I like to reverse the positions first, then argue. Let’s say that the CA voters made it a constitutional amendment to say that Marraige was only between one man and a dog. or one man and a man. Does the federal court have the power to declare that as unconstitutional?
One would think it is a state issue so it has no federal jurisdiction, it would make a lot of people mad, but would the state of CA have the constitutional right to declare Marriage as only be between one man and one man (or one dog for that matter0?
Let’s say that the CA voters made it a constitutional amendment to say that Marraige was only between one man and a dog. or one man and a man. Does the federal court have the power to declare that as unconstitutional?
That begs the question, what are the odds that the voters of California would vote for a constitutional amendment declaring marriage was only between one man and a dog, or one man and a man. I’d say zero, which makes your “what if” moot.
I’d love to think Barry and his merry crew may realize that disarming America is just a physical impossibility, but the explanation may also simply be one of timing. Let’s say that Obama and his crew did wage an all-out assault on gun owners. What do you think would be his chances of getting re-elected? ZIP! But, if he gets re-elected, and that’s still a big if, he’ll have 4 years to wreak havoc on the Second Amendment — without any accountability. Just a thought.
I have the feeling that this Progressive administration is trying to do what every good little regime tries to do and they are making ground.
1. Control the media and information. So far, the MSM has been in the bag and never forget the “fairness doctrine” and SOPA to try and reign in the rest.
2. Disarm the population. They have made several attempts and will continue to do so.
3. Get as many as possible relying on them for everything from food to housing till it goes past the tipping point. Doing pretty well with that as well.
As they have before (Wilson, FDR), when they pushed too far at once, the people have stopped just going about their daily lives and started to stand up to this Socialism in disguise. Let us hope we have the fight in us to turn back the clock to the pre-60’s in entitlement programs, fiscal spending, and return the power to the States where it belongs. This will need to be a mufti-generational effort to be worthwhile. Either that or other remedies will occur first.
As far as the cost of Ammo and at least long guns, have not priced handguns lately — the price has been dropping because of the high sales. Everyone is running at new production levels and the demand has and is strong–ever since around 2007…wonder what happened then?
With due respect Spook, your concern that Obama would stage an assault on the 2nd Amendment was self inflicted paranoia. If you believed this was likely you are not very good at taking the temperature of the political environment. Even if Obama was in favor of some kind of change to gun laws he is ultimately much better at taking such a temperature. Ultimately he is a pragmatist. Beyond that there is not a very strong advocacy for substantial changes to the law. Obama would have very little to gain politically. Whatever gains he would make with such a limited interest groups would be greatly overshadowed by the political cost. While I think there is widespread support for reasonable gun control laws I don’t believe there is much momentum for wholesale changes. If you thought that was ever a threat you were out of touch. I hope you didn’t go out and overspend on the inflated prices that resulted from this hysteria.
Ultimately, Obama is an ideologue. I do not think he wants a career in politics, as that has already proved too demanding of him. But he does have a deep seated belief in a specific ideology and I think imposing this on the nation is his primary goal.
Trying to predict what Obama might do in terms of its eventual “political cost” is kind of like Ron Paul’s effort to apply MADD to a nation whose goal is martyrdom—it is irrelevant.
Obama wants to get reelected, as he needs that four more years to “fundamentally transform” this nation, and I suggest that the only “political cost” that concerns him is extremely short term. Given four years with no concern for reelection, he will then be able to be even more aggressive in pushing his hard-core Leftist agenda.
And failing to see current efforts, from Fast and Furious to the presidential edict handing over unprecedented power and authority to an unelected and unaccountable Federal agency (the EPA) as anything but setting the stage for a major power play after 2012 is simply naive.
With due respect Spook, your concern that Obama would stage an assault on the 2nd Amendment was self inflicted paranoia. If you believed this was likely you are not very good at taking the temperature of the political environment.
No, with all due respect, it was based, not on some crystal ball prediction of what he would do as President, but on what his record on the Second Amendment and gun rights had been prior to his election. Hopefully we won’t ever get a chance to find out what he would do in his second term.
Operation Fast and Furious was going to be another excuse for more “reasonable restrictions” and more encroachment of our rights.
Before the scandal broke, obAMATEUR was already preaching about “international gun control” to the Mexican President.
It’s the difference between the audacity of audacity and the audacity of hope.
NeoClown said, “Want a definition of “legislating from the bench”? Simply read recent headlines. The judicial branch has abused its power by self-declaring itself to have power above the executive and legislative branches. Judicial activism continues to wreak havoc in our land. Instead of practicing law, judges push forth their agendas.”
Funny. That’s exactly what you want the courts to do to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010.
Funny. That’s exactly what you want the courts to do to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010.
No it’s not. What we want the court to do is rule on whether the Constitution gives the Federal Government the power to force individuals to engage in commerce. Now if you want to argue that it’s an “agenda” to restrict the government to the powers afforded to it in the Constitution, well, then, go ahead and make that argument. I’m dying to hear it.
wattle, have you ever even READ the Constitution? Do you have even the slightest understanding of what it says, or why it was written the way it was?
I ask because your comment on the laughably named Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 indicates either ignorance of the Constitution or contempt for it.
Here is a hint: Read this, work at figuring out what it means, and then tell us how legislation regarding the entry of the federal government into private health care, and making laws requiring individuals to enter into contracts and make purchases, complies with this:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Tell us which power delegated to the United States by the Constitution requires the government to participate in private health care.
(Because that is what DELEGATED means. It does not mean “can” or “may” or anything but MUST.)
Then explain how, if this is not a power DELEGATED to the United States government, BY THE CONSTITUTION, it is legal.
The body of the original Constitution includes the enumerated duties of the federal government—the MUSTS.
The Bill of Rights says what the federal government CANNOT do.
Anything that falls between the MUSTS and the CAN’Ts is, to quote the 10th Amendment, …reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Why is this so hard to understand?
spook, I’ve been waiting for a discussion on the intent of the Bill of Rights—that is, the intent to firmly and permanently limit the size and scope of the federal government—-and so far it hasn’t happened.
I expected conservatives, who tend to hold their political positions because of understanding and allegiance to the principles of the Constitution, to be eager to talk about why the Bill of Rights exists, and what these ten amendments mean in the overall scheme of national governance.
doug and steelhead chose to zero in on a couple of specifics they could pick at but they refused to talk about the openly stated goal of those amendments—-that is, and was, the goal of making sure the federal government would never exceed the boundaries of the enumerated duties assigned to it.
But it seems to me that the Bill of Rights ought to be the centerpiece of every single political discussion we have—that is, if you view politics as the blueprint for governing the nation, and not just as a popularity contest or an excuse to wallow in scandal.
Just think of what our legislation would look like today if we had, say in 1950, passed a law that required every bill voted on by Congress to be no more than five pages long, address only one specific issue, be written by its sponsor, AND BE ACCOMPANIED BY A BRIEF SHOWING HOW IT COMPLIED WITH THE 10TH AMENDMENT.
Of all the problems and disasters that would have been avoided, the most relevant in this particular time are the housing boom and bust—no Fannie Mae, no Freddie Mac, no Community Reinvestment Act, and so on.
Why does the Left fight so strenuously to ignore, deny or defeat the 10th Amendment? Can any of you Lefties explain this? And maybe even defend it, if you are one of the few who actually delve beneath the superficial in your political choices?